I originally denied two budgets for similar reasons. I would be okay with most projects losing their funding without discussion if this is the case. It’s not an infinite pile of money.
I think if you took a look at the mentorship budget, you can see how we substantiated our KPIs ( Mentorship Program Budget S1 Application - #17 by ntindle ). If you take a look at the dev guild, you could see how we substantiated our KPIs ( Dev Guild S1 Budget Application - #11 by kempsterrrr ). If you take a look at the website team, you will see that there wasn’t strong substantiation of the KPIs ( D_D Website S1 Budget - #14 by kempsterrrr ). I would deny that one or ask for more information. We are now weeks past the deadline for approvals (Nov 23) so Eden was denied so that it may be discussed amongst the other budget stewards.
If others aren’t reviewing to this standard I’d be curious why we are funding projects that aren’t fulfilling their self set goals without updating the organization on the changes in the goals.
I’m okay with shifting goals, and I’m okay with not meeting goals. I’m not okay with a lack of clarity of what those goals are and if we are meeting them.
I’m not asking for an interview of thirty people here. I’m asking if they met their KPIs and if not, why didn’t they and do they want to revise them. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. It really shouldn’t take more than ten minutes to use the template I sent and say “yes we met this goal” or “no we didn’t, here’s why.”
I would also like to point out that Blue mentions how many budget stewards are directly related to this project and while that is great, will complicate voting.